SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

E. Muriu Kamau & another v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2009] KECA 111 (KLR)

[2009] KECA 111 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
111
Citation
[2009] KECA 111 (KLR)
Decided
23 October 2009
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureApplication for stay of execution pending appealCoramE. O. O’KUBASU, D. K. S. AGANYANYA, J. G. NYAMU
Holding

The court grants an order of stay pending the appeal and orders that the costs of the application be costs in the appeal.

Facts

The applicant law firm, E. Muriu Kamau and Njoroge Nani Mungai, was found negligent by the High Court in offering services to the respondent bank, National Bank of Kenya Limited. The bank was awarded Kshs.27 million in damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the intended appeal is arguable.
  2. Whether the intended appeal, if successful, would render the judgment nugatory.
  3. Whether the applicant's financial standing and operations would be adversely affected by the payment of the judgment sum.

Reasoning

The court finds the grounds of the appeal not frivolous and considers the judgment sum substantial, potentially causing hardship to the applicant. The court grants the stay due to the balance of convenience and the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act and Appellate Jurisdiction Act.

Outcome

Order of stay granted

Orders

  • Order of stay pending appeal
  • Order for costs of the application to be costs in the appeal

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Act
Cases cited (2)
  • Oraro & Rachier Advocates vs Cooperative Bank of Kenya Ltd (1999) 1 E A 236
  • Kenya Shell Limited vs Benjamin Kiburu & Another (1982) 88 1 K A R 1018
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case